Washington State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.0842nd
  Defense−0.0386th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense45.5%74th
  Defense38.9%80th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1121st
  Defense+1.2146th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0221st
  Defense+0.0262nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1240th
  Defense−0.0795th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.0%78th
  Defense44.5%73rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.9%64th
  Defense29.3%84th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1181st
  Defense2.4588th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.0%89th
  Defense24.5%93rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.4%59th
  Defense17.7%68th

Percentiles among the 130 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2017

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Washington State allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   MTST
2. W
   BOIS
3. W
   ORST
4. W
   NEV
5. W
   USC
6. W
   ORE
7. L
   CAL
8. W
   COLO
9. L
   ARIZ
10. W
    STAN
11. W
    UTAH
12. L
    WASH
13. L
    MSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Washington State.

Players, 2017

1. Luke FalkQB422 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 51st of 226 QBs
   1.36WAR0.66 to 2.02
2. Tyler HilinskiQB93 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 142nd of 226 QBs
   0.35WAR0.20 to 0.48
3. Jamal MorrowRB102 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 127th of 352 RBs
   0.26WAR0.18 to 0.32
4. Tavares Martin Jr.WR73 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 44th of 426 WRs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.27
5. Erik PowellPK18 plays · +0.482 pts/play · 15th of 110 kickers
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
6. James WilliamsRB92 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 233rd of 352 RBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
7. Kyle SweetWR80 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 141st of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
8. Renard BellWR36 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 237th of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Washington State's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  54954960th of 130Roster talent: 549, 60th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18018048th of 130Recruiting: 180, 48th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  77%77%28th of 128Returning production: 77%, 28th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.6+8.640th of 128SP+ rating: +8.6, 40th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2017

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Washington State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.16 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. vs USCQ4 1:40 4th & 2 at USC 15, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
2. vs USCQ3 2:16 4th & 2 at WSU 10, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. vs USCQ3 4:37 4th & 3 at WSU 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs BOISQ3 6:46 4th & 3 at WSU 10, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs STANQ4 0:35 4th & 5 at STAN 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at ARIZQ2 5:43 4th & 1 at WSU 34, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs BOISQ2 0:41 4th & 3 at BOIS 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at ARIZQ2 11:04 4th & 7 at ARIZ 39, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

44th of 130 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Washington State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   MTST
2. W

   BOIS
3. W

   ORST
4. W

   NEV
5. W

   USC
6. W

   ORE
7. L

   CAL
8. W

   COLO
9. L

   ARIZ
10. W

    STAN
11. W

    UTAH
12. L

    WASH
13. L

    MSU

What moved it, 2017

Every game starts at Washington State's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+0.67
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts−0.12
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.42

Game by game

• MTSTW 31-0 vs MTST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• BOISW 47-44 vs BOIS75% → 85%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts −18
• ORSTW 52-23 vs ORST91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• NEVW 45-7 vs NEV97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• USCW 30-27 vs USC37% → 96%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +3
• OREW 33-10 at ORE56% → 99%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +49, Clock +1
• CALL 3-37 at CAL90% → 0%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −90: Scoreboard −66, Timeouts +1
• COLOW 28-0 vs COLO75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28
• ARIZL 37-58 at ARIZ50% → 1%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• STANW 24-21 vs STAN48% → 97%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• UTAHW 33-25 at UTAH56% → 95%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• WASHL 14-41 at WASH25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −26
• MSUL 17-42 at MSU50% → 0%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Washington State's side.

Closest call

BOIS 44-47 WSU (2017) - Washington State dropped to a 1.9% win probability before pulling it out.